Our biology is our politics
A review of “Predisposed”
Cover of “Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences” by John R. Hibbing, Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Alford.
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences. Routledge. 288 pages.
Overview
The environment is not the only thing influencing one’s political views and behaviour; genetics and neurobiology are heavily involved. It is upsetting for some people to learn this, but it is true, and needs to be understood.
In “Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives and the Biology of Political Differences” (2014), professors of political science John R. Hibbing (who is also a professor of psychology), Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Alford “aim to explain why people experience and interpret the political world so very differently…[and] we want liberals and conservatives to understand why they are different from each other and why those differences frequently seem so unbridgeable. (p. 4).
Based “on a massive collection of studies conducted by many scholars in many countries,” the authors argue “that the weight of evidence permits confidence in the claim that liberals and conservatives really are fundamentally different” (p. 9).
Readers will be delighted, awestruck, and frightened by the findings from the studies presented in the book. We may wish to believe we are in complete control of our beliefs and responses to certain stimuli, but our biomarkers indicate otherwise.
What are the main points of “Predisposed”?
The authors write that
Each of us is primed to respond physiologically and psychologically to certain categories of stimuli – just not to the same stimuli and not to the same degree…These standing biologically instantiated response orientations are a key part of what we mean when we say “predispositions” (p. 20) (my bolding).
However, the authors are careful to note that “predispositions are not fixed at birth,” that it’s not a matter of nature versus nurture. Instead, “Innate forces combine with early development and later powerful environmental events to create attitudinal and behavioral tendencies” (p. 23).
Hibbing, Smith, and Alford also stress readers to think “probabilistically rather than deterministically” (p. 13), a point repeated throughout the book. Instead of biological characteristics like genetics or neurochemistry “determining” our lives, they instead “shape,” “influence,” “mould,” and “incline” to think and act in specific ways.
Unsurprisingly, the authors reject the notions that “politics is culturally and historically idiosyncratic” and that “we all share the same basic psychological, emotional and cognitive architecture” because “politics is universal and human nature varies” (p. 29). It is a fantasy for us to meet in the middle of the political spectrum.
Why is this book important?
Despite the “fantasy” of meeting in the middle, “Predisposed” allows us to comprehend the biological reasons for politically left and right biases, differences, and similarities.
The book is empirically and scientifically grounded, making it more credible than texts that rely on theoretical and philosophical frameworks. This is a relief for anyone, such as myself, who was obligated to read political philosophy books published centuries ago and may no longer be relevant.
The knowledge in “Predisposed” teaches us more about political differences, values, and polarization, which allow us to feel greater compassion and less indifference, disgust, or hatred towards politically different people. Political debate is inevitable, and it can be insufferably exhausting for anyone to comprehend the policy approaches and value judgements of opposing individuals and groups.
The book’s key strengths
John Hibbing, Kevin Smith, and John Alford are impartial and open about their political leanings. Early in the book, the authors address the concern about left-leaning professors (such as themselves) supposedly imposing their agendas and ideologically indoctrinating students. The truth is, they explain, is that it is all too easy to make this accusation and that it may not be accurate. When students grow up, they become politically different from when they were younger in various ways. Secondly, political beliefs are fungible in that they change in time and place (p. 36). Politics is unstable. Everyone has biases, but the fact that the authors took the liberty to acknowledge the issue is already worth applauding. Additionally, if one is skeptical of the claims, one can always research the evidence underpinning their arguments by reading further into the studies. Thankfully, the authors clearly present everything as footnotes for each chapter and a bibliography at the end.
Hibbing, Smith, and Alford are also extremely clear – and hilarious. It’s easy for readers without any scientific background to understand the technical concepts in genetics, biology, and neuroscience since the authors attentively define core concepts as they present the material. They define everything from seemingly benign terminology like “personality” to more complicated concepts like “single nucleotide polymorphism” (SNP) and “anterior cingulate cortex” (ACC). Furthermore, the authors use ample evidence and succinctly articulate how some studies were performed, allowing readers to grasp the nuances of their conclusions. To make things even better, they intersperse this material with humour and levity regularly, making the book not only informative but entertaining.
The authors are not afraid to challenge maxims and popular icons. In “Chapter Three: There is No Normal,” when discussing the importance of individual variation, they explain the reasons why Margaret Mead’s anthropological studies on Samoan people in the Pacific were not accurate (p. 73), and why Malcolm Gladwell is incorrect about how everyone can be great if they work at it, remaining skeptical of the idea that “attitudes can be ‘willed’ even if aptitudes cannot” (p. 75). The authors’ opinions are gratifying for those looking for a message more scientifically grounded and different from the dominant narratives of which we are often bombarded.
They address the obvious fears that many will likely have upon reading about this type of research. Hibbing, Smith, and Alford clearly articulate that nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive and that our biology is ‘programed’ and malleable rather than set in stone (p. 207). Environmental stimuli clearly matter, and genetics are not necessarily fatally deterministic. Additionally, the authors acknowledge the threat of discrimination against those who are biologically different but stress that “Within-group variation usually dwarfs variation between groups” because “groups of humans are not particularly genetically distinct” (p. 209). All societies contend with discrimination issues, but hopefully, books like “Predisposed” can help us better understand why we are different so that we may treat each other more compassionately.
I could not find any significant weaknesses in this book, but that could be due to my limited knowledge of neuroscience and genetics; I cannot adequately critique their findings. It is important to mention that the scientific literature may be a bit outdated, seeing that the book is from 2014. Nevertheless, it would be unsurprising if additional research further buttresses the authors’ main arguments. The book remains an excellent starting place for anyone wanting to read more into political biology.
Key takeaways of “Predisposed”
What are the most important points this book makes for this blog’s purpose? Understanding politics is essential to understanding why some societies are structured the way they are and why some are greater than others. Here are just six points about the biology of politics that everyone should know if they wish to understand the role of political biology and political organization.
Philosophy and society do not explain everything. The bedrock dilemma of politics, which is essentially the commonality of politics (p. 37), “reflect divisions in the underlying first principle of politics: core preferences about the organization, structure and conduct of mass social life.” (p. 44). It is why, the authors explain, that “genetics appear to exert more influence on political attitudes than other social attitudes” (p. 38). Knowing the biological underpinnings of one’s political attitudes is imperative since people’s policy stances may appear different depending on the context but are ultimately the same. Case and point: right-wingers before the Second World War were staunchly isolationist due to their high preference for security and protection of the in-group. Yet, during the Cold War, right-wingers largely supported intervention wherever necessary, which is the opposite of isolation, but for the same reason: protection of one’s tribe because they greatly value the security of the in-group against the out-group. Same predispositions, different policy (re)actions given the new political context (p. 48). In other words, knowing someone’s predispositions will help us understand and perhaps predict their stance on a given issue and policy action.
Conservatives and liberals perceive environmental stimuli differently. Both sides inhabit the same world but perceive it differently. The authors argue that liberals are more easily influenced by social cues, while conservatives are more willing or able to ignore them and focus on rule-following (p. 121-124), for instance. Hibbing, Smith, and Alford also note, “it is not just that liberals and conservatives prefer different policies; they see different policies currently in place…[and] These perceptual differences are not limited to politics” (p. 134). The reality is that everyone will perceive the same policy, person, or group differently, regardless of its merits or characteristics. Later in the book, the authors say that people with different political predispositions simply live in a different world with specific facts (p. 242). People, by and large, refuse to remember what bothers them. We like to come up with unflattering memories and thoughts of those unlike ourselves. It challenges societies and individuals to genuinely comprehend the nature of public policy and makes public debate far more complex. Despite this, it’s crucial to note that “there are numerous exceptions” (p. 142) to these identifiable patterns.
We are not born blank slates. The environment is not the only thing responsible for our values, beliefs, and behaviours, and there is simply no such thing as a single human nature. Some people are more generous, punitive, selfish, or strategic than others (p. 64). The authors provide several neuroscientific studies demonstrating how part of our aptitudes and attitudes stem from our biology. For example, uncooperative people’s brains experience less activation in the limbic area, compared to cooperative people, when playing games of trust with others, as if they were emotionally void (p. 66). The authors also share a disturbing case study of a forty-year-old married man who suddenly became interested in child pornography. His interest in child pornography resulted from a large tumour in his orbitofrontal cortex. He knew it was wrong to have such feelings, but they only disappeared upon the tumour’s removal. The tumour was the cause. The authors write that he was, indeed, “powerless” (p. 83).
We may like to believe we are in control of our thoughts, emotions, actions, and reactions, that we are intelligent, hardworking, impartial, and broad-minded. Yet, heaps of evidence from neuroscience suggest otherwise. These findings in neuroscience and genetics will force us to reconsider many of our foundational beliefs and laws that help govern society, be they notions of free will, criminal responsibility, or the reasons for one’s extravagant economic success over most others. We have limited (if any) free will at all. Knowing this, it’s difficult to judge anyone, whether a criminal or a billionaire CEO. All of us may not be entirely responsible for our beliefs and actions, as controversial as it is to admit. Consequently, public policy, the courts, and established norms may not provide us with an effective yardstick to comprehend and evaluate someone’s aptitudes and behaviours.
Conservatives and liberals are biologically different. To grossly overstate the findings: conservatives exalt authority, established principles and traditional customs, and are often sensitive to disloyalty. On the other hand, liberals are likelier to seek novelty and engage in more creative, flexible thinking and perspective-taking. Of course, the differences are more nuanced, given the circumstances. To elaborate on these predispositions, the authors explore the idea of a “deep psychology underlying politics,” in which traits and psychometrics can evaluate an individual’s political leanings. The metrics are not perfect, but they can be used to observe strong correlations to determine where someone stands on the political spectrum (p. 103). However, the authors stress that if someone scores high on, say, the openness trait, they are not necessarily predetermined as a liberal. Similarly, those who score high on conscientiousness are not all necessarily conservative. People are more complicated than that; there is such a thing as liberal gun owners and vegetarian conservatives.
People probably have broad likes and dislikes that guide their feelings, thoughts, and actions (p. 105), which are rooted in their biology. For instance, on average, the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC), the brain’s multitasker and helper of error detection and conflict resolution, is more prominent in liberals than conservatives (p. 154). Conservatives, meanwhile, generally have larger amygdalas, the oldest part of the brain and part of the limbic system, which plays a role in emotional regulation and how information about others “is processed, stored, and employed” (p. 156). The amygdala is also heavily involved in our fight or flight response. In one study the authors share, those who were more conservative on “socially protective policies” (p. 161) also tend to have higher responses to threatening images, as evidenced in higher Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) activation.
The authors explain how this is common across all individuals in all societies as they must respond to biological, social, and group needs (p. 108). Our “political orientations,” write the authors, “spring from the different motivational biases that underlie the taxonomy of values,” and there’s substantial research to support this (p. 110). A key message for readers is that no matter how difficult it is to comprehend someone’s political difference, it’s necessary to remind ourselves that their differences are largely rooted in their biology. Lastly, it is imperative to understand the technologies and methodologies used to study these differences “are far from perfect” (p. 157). Technological advances are still necessary to gauge how an individual or electorate will respond to certain stimuli or how and why, biologically, they support specific policies.
It’s becoming increasingly possible to determine one’s political orientations through genetic research (p. 183). The authors provide much more evidence throughout the latter half of the book about the role of genes and politics, though they continue to stress the results should be viewed tentatively (p. 191). Because genes often have subtle gradations and interact with numerous other genes, it can be challenging to determine if one gene is responsible for a defined behaviour or advantage (p. 182-183). For instance, the effect of one gene on something as complex as political attitudes is likely small, and it is probably contingent on a variety of other genetic interactions and environmental stimuli (p. 192). Despite this, everyone must remember that “biological characteristics do not need to be genetic” (p. 194) because the environment affects biology as well. For this reason, it is impossible to argue that conservativism is better than liberalism or vice versa since the environmental stimuli are constantly changing, in some cases more favourable to certain traits than others (p. 220). Evolution is always a moving target, and the biological adaptations to these external stimuli are near-sighted because they respond to the most immediate stimuli.
Conservatives and liberals may both need each other to ensure society’s well-functioning. One argument suggests that societies with varied political types are more resilient to changing environments. Some groups are more willing to engage with out-groups, and others are more willing to defend the in-group. Additionally, some groups are more inclined to try new things and be ambitious, while others are more cautious and prudent (p. 225). It makes sense to balance the interests and skills to ensure society is not entirely lopsided. If too friendly and engaging with an outsider, a potentially hostile out-group could quash an in-group. The hostile out-group could steal the in-group’s intellectual property, trade secrets, or worse, eradicate and enslave the in-group for their generosity and willingness to cooperate and appease. But if too cautious and prudent, the in-group may stagnate (or move backwards) while the rest of the world pushes ahead in scientific, technological, philosophical, and cultural development.
Perhaps this is part of why many Western democratic nations function so well: they democratize the policy-making process far more effectively than other types of regimes. In democratic societies, people with different ideologies and skills can more easily participate publicly than those living under rigid, authoritarian societies. In a similar vein, could this partially explain why authoritarian regimes are often susceptible to shocks and upheavals since they demand conformity and obedience? It would not be surprising if that is part of the answer. The same issue is observable on a smaller scale at the workplace, where homogenous teams do not function well, especially when groupthink is far too rampant. A company can probably reap dividends by creating teams with diverse experience, skills, and knowledge to reduce and eliminate the issue of groupthink and its devastating consequences on an organization’s financial outcome. It might also be true for complex societies. However, the authors believe it’s naïve to imagine that conservatives or liberals “will ever live happily ever after in political harmony and agreement” (p. 238). It would be wise to assume that birds of a feather will continue to flock together, whether in a democratic or authoritarian society.
Who should read “Predisposed”?
If you are exhausted from having to read the long-winded, meandering mental diarrhea from past political philosophers who did not have the means to measure and test the validity of their theories, then you should read “Predisposed.” Readers will learn all about the biological reality of politics through unambiguous evidence and hilarious commentary.
Your opinions and values are likely grounded in your biochemical makeup. Consequently, your opinions and values are probably correct and helpful to you, and the authors encourage you to believe them. But, as Hibbing, Smith, and Alford stress, please be humble and recognize that your values and opinions alone cannot lead to a society that works for everyone or to a society that everyone even wants (p. 255).
Some of the book’s conclusions may cause trepidation among readers. However, it is better to be informed than outraged – even if acquiring additional, contradictory information does not change our opinions. There is no doubt that some extremist groups will use data on political biology for nefarious purposes. Extremists will formulate their own conclusions with whatever genetic information they can find and use it to justify the subjugation, segregation, and oppression of other groups deemed inferior or less desirable. Their reasoning could include variables related to IQ, athletic ability, medical conditions, beliefs, habits, or something else they find offensive. However, the authors draw a crucial past parallel demonstrating how elucidating these biological insights could help: sexuality. The increasing awareness of sexuality’s biological roots helped aid its acceptance more broadly throughout society (p. 255). The same could happen with more research into biological and genetically rooted politics.
Seeing that our individual politics are biologically rooted, perhaps our public institutions are, too? Or maybe our public institutions better reflect the genes and neurobiochemical structures of those in power, the ones who can capture markets, elections, legislators, courts, academia, etc.? These questions require further exploration, and they will likely become easier to answer with advancements in DNA collection and data analysis across multiple populations.